Planned Parenthood and Abortion

[Feathers in Hair]

(A mite off-topic, but as usual when dealing with such wonderful people as Ceridwen, Civilcynic and Sunstone, I just want to say how great it is when people are able to debate calmly and in a gracious manner! As someone 'looking on' in the discussion, I learn so much more from these posts than the other type!)

 

[civilcynic]

is she allowed to terminate her child's life sometime after it is born because she changed her mind?

As you can see, I have excerpted this part way through the quote. The reason I did so was because it posed an interesting question/problem......You see, in the US, there are situations where an individual parent can allow the termination of a child's life.....The one I see most applicable is the right for parents with certain religious beliefs to deny medical treatment for their kids. There have been instances where medical treatment, such as a blood transfusion, could save a child's life and yet that can be denied and children have died because of their parents religious beliefs.

As far as identifying those for and against abortion rights...it is all semantics. I picked the one I felt most closely described the situation:
Pro-abortion : IMO means promoting and encouraging individual to have
abortions as the means to handle unwanted pregnancy. Those
who support abortion rights do not have this stance....They
believe that a woman has a choice of how to deal with the
pregnancy....adoption, keeping the baby or abortion.

Anti-life: In reference to the abortion issue, IMO means having a
complete disregard for outcome of the pregnancy. It disregards the
life of the mother as well as the outcome of the pregnancy as well
as other loved ones. It is the "too bad the mother's health is at
risk"; the "too bad the child is anenocephlic and will live in agony
a few hours after birth"; the "tough luck about young girl who
was raped by her stepdad and now pregnant"; etc; Those who
support abortion rights recognize that these situations happen and
that the decision to abort may be based on various reasons.

Pro-choice: The most appropriate term IMO because it defines those who
support abortion rights as those who believe that women take
pregnancy seriously and are capable of making the decision based
on their own personal situation.

Pro-life: IMO suggests that these individuals put equal value on both the
mother and the unborn. In reality, they do not. How can one be
truly pro-life if they legislate a mother to die for the sake of the
baby, legislate an anenocephalic baby must be born to live only a
few hours with suffering and the devastating effects on the family?

Anti-abortion/Anti-choice: IMO means that all abortion should be illegal from
birth control pills through clinical abortions. This term does not allow
for exceptions nor suggests that women have a right to choose
the type of family planning they use or the right to have a determine
their healthcare once they become pregnant. In essence, once a
woman becomes pregnant, they lose all rights in deciding their
medical, psychological and social needs.
In terms of semantics, therefore I view people being either pro-choice or anti-abortion or anti-choice but not by any means pro-life.

 

[Ceridwen018]

In terms of semantics, therefore I view people being either pro-choice or anti-abortion or anti-choice but not by any means pro-life.

Well, that's your perogative. In truth, it doesn't really bother me that much, and I'm glad to see that you've actually thought it through. Please though, call me anti-abortion instead of anti-choice then. I am not anti-choice.

As you can see, I have excerpted this part way through the quote. The reason I did so was because it posed an interesting question/problem......You see, in the US, there are situations where an individual parent can allow the termination of a child's life.....The one I see most applicable is the right for parents with certain religious beliefs to deny medical treatment for their kids. There have been instances where medical treatment, such as a blood transfusion, could save a child's life and yet that can be denied and children have died because of their parents religious beliefs.

By the definition of terminate, these parents would not be terminating the child's life...what they would be doing is neglecting to take the necessary steps in helping their child to get better.

I don't agree with this at all, and I know you don't either. This is a troubling subject indeed. For a parent to deny their child medication, and as a result put that child at risk of death or permanent injury is grounds for that child to be taken away by social services. This is an extremely faulty solution, but it's better than nothing I suppose. .....Wow, you've really got me thinking hard on this! I'm trying to think of a plan or set of laws that could prevent this kind of thing...hhhmmmmm....

Anywho, back on topic! What did you think about the rest of my post?

 

[civilcynic]

I think I see one of the diverging viewpoints that we have in terms of the varying levels of dependency as you noted between a 4 yr. old and the unborn. The difference, I believe, is that you view the unborn as a separate entity (for lack of a better analogy...a symbiotic life....at least during the pregnancy) whereas I view the unborn as a part of the woman. As a result, while you believe abortion is taking a life, I view it more like having an amputation.

Although there is an exception to every rule, I do not think (and in my own limited experience ever have found) most women use abortion as a first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy but rather as a last resort. I also do not believe that most women who decide on an abortion do so without agonizing over that decision.

I don't see abortion as a black/white issue or a right/wrong issue because there are too many variables to consider and that is why I have a problem with legislating a ban on abortion. As you noted in one of your posts, a woman whose pregnancy might result in her death should have the right to have the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Well, what about a woman who is on medication which she would have to stop because it would do serious damage to the fetus....and yet, being without this medication could seriously harm but not kill the woman. What about those unborn that are identified with severe birth defects such as being born without a brain and will only live for a few hours? What about victims of rape or incest....some can do just fine emotionally and have a good support system but there are others who won't be able to handle the pregnancy emotionally and become suicidal or suffer severe repercussions (ie: a stepfather who rapes may beat the daughter hoping to have her miscarry). There are thousands of different scenarios and circumstances which I do not believe can be adequately addressed through legislation nor do I think they should be.

The one thing that I do think we can agree on is that the best way to stop abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see abortion as a black/white issue or a right/wrong issue because there are too many variables to consider and that is why I have a problem with legislating a ban on abortion. As you noted in one of your posts, a woman whose pregnancy might result in her death should have the right to have the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Well, what about a woman who is on medication which she would have to stop because it would do serious damage to the fetus....and yet, being without this medication could seriously harm but not kill the woman. What about those unborn that are identified with severe birth defects such as being born without a brain and will only live for a few hours? What about victims of rape or incest....some can do just fine emotionally and have a good support system but there are others who won't be able to handle the pregnancy emotionally and become suicidal or suffer severe repercussions (ie: a stepfather who rapes may beat the daughter hoping to have her miscarry). There are thousands of different scenarios and circumstances which I do not believe can be adequately addressed through legislation nor do I think they should be.

Ceridwen, what Civilcynic says about the issue being too complex to be adequately addressed through legistlation is very much in line with how I see it, too. (I'm in such substantial agreement with that view that I can save myself some typing by merely quoting her here.) Abortion is an evil, and I have no love of it, but it is (as I see it) in many specific cases the lesser evil.

The one thing that I do think we can agree on is that the best way to stop abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I think we can all agree on that. As far as means are concerned, I might go further than either you, Ceridwen, or you, Civilcynic, in my advocating that condom vending machines be installed in high schools. I think that both sends a message about practicing safer sex, and provides ready access to a means to safer sex.

Lastly, Ceridwen, let me say that even though I disagree with you, what a pleasure it is to read your articulate, well-reasoned (and non-hysterical), posts. IF I didn't know you were 17, I would guess your age to be much much older, your experience to be much broader. But do you think that when you get another 30 years under your belt, you will see this issue as being as clear-cut as you do today? I myself don't know what the answer to that question is, but I would like to.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I think I see one of the diverging viewpoints that we have in terms of the varying levels of dependency as you noted between a 4 yr. old and the unborn. The difference, I believe, is that you view the unborn as a separate entity (for lack of a better analogy...a symbiotic life....at least during the pregnancy) whereas I view the unborn as a part of the woman. As a result, while you believe abortion is taking a life, I view it more like having an amputation.

I see what you're saying, but would have to argue that this is scientifically inaccurate. The embryo may be attached to the woman's uterus, but it contains it's very own DNA from the moment of conception, and therefore cannot be classified as part of the woman.

Although there is an exception to every rule, I do not think (and in my own limited experience ever have found) most women use abortion as a first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy but rather as a last resort. I also do not believe that most women who decide on an abortion do so without agonizing over that decision.

I agree.

I don't see abortion as a black/white issue or a right/wrong issue because there are too many variables to consider and that is why I have a problem with legislating a ban on abortion. As you noted in one of your posts, a woman whose pregnancy might result in her death should have the right to have the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Well, what about a woman who is on medication which she would have to stop because it would do serious damage to the fetus....and yet, being without this medication could seriously harm but not kill the woman. What about those unborn that are identified with severe birth defects such as being born without a brain and will only live for a few hours?

I believe that in situations where the mother's or baby's life is at risk, abortion should be available for consideration, to either save the life of the mother or keep the baby from needless suffering.

What about victims of rape or incest....some can do just fine emotionally and have a good support system but there are others who won't be able to handle the pregnancy emotionally and become suicidal or suffer severe repercussions (ie: a stepfather who rapes may beat the daughter hoping to have her miscarry). There are thousands of different scenarios and circumstances which I do not believe can be adequately addressed through legislation nor do I think they should be.

Victims of rape and incest are going to suffer psychological trauma whether or not they carry their baby to term. I would think that the added psychological trauma of having an abortion would only compound the problem.

There are plenty of women's organizations whose sole purpose is to provide support for women in the situations you described. I don't mean to sound heartless, but there is no excuse for a girl, pregnant by her father, to stay in the house if he beats her, as there are plenty of places she could go.

The one thing that I do think we can agree on is that the best way to stop abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I do agree.

Abortion is an evil, and I have no love of it, but it is (as I see it) in many specific cases the lesser evil.

I see exactly where you guys are coming from, but I honestly think there are better ways to handle such situations. Take the girl who is being beaten by her father, for example: if he does get her to miscarry, or if she has an abortion, the chances of him getting her pregnant again are very high. The vicious cycle of get pregnant-get beaten up-miscarry/have abortion will never end. If the girl goes for help, however, she can get psychological and physical help, as well as deliver a healthy baby which can be put up for adoption if she doesn't want to keep it.

Lastly, Ceridwen, let me say that even though I disagree with you, what a pleasure it is to read your articulate, well-reasoned (and non-hysterical), posts. IF I didn't know you were 17, I would guess your age to be much much older, your experience to be much broader. But do you think that when you get another 30 years under your belt, you will see this issue as being as clear-cut as you do today? I myself don't know what the answer to that question is, but I would like to.

Thank you for your compliments, Sunstone (I'm glad I don't sound hysterical ) I try to keep an open mind to everything, including the issue of abortion. Who knows what I'll think 15 years down the road--personally, I think I'll still be pro-life, but it's foolish to claim certainty on such things. My mentor on this subject right now is my Biology teacher. In the 70's, she was heavy into the women's rights movement, and so of course was heavily pro-choice, but as she studied Biology in college, her opinions did a complete 180. Even my own mother was slightly pro-choice until she went to medical school. Statistics show that most doctors and people in biology-related fields are pro-life. I say that I'll probably be pro-life when I'm 30 for the same reason that these people do: because I base my opinions on the cold hard facts of science. Unless there are new developments within science, I don't see how I can logically change my mind.

Food for thought: Did you know that the baby can kick after only 10 weeks? Did you also know that about 75% of abortions are completed within the second trimester, ie, between 12 and 24 weeks?

One other thing before I get off of my soapbox--there is much talk of the pain and suffering of the mother, and that is all fine and well, but what of that helpless little kicking baby? From that perspective, abortion seems very selfish.

 

[civilcynic]

I see what you're saying, but would have to argue that this is scientifically inaccurate. The embryo may be attached to the woman's uterus, but it contains it's very own DNA from the moment of conception, and therefore cannot be classified as part of the woman

I believe that in situations where the mother's or baby's life is at risk, abortion should be available for consideration, to either save the life of the mother or keep the baby from needless suffering.

..... I base my opinions on the cold hard facts of science.

I concede that I made a poor analogy in terms of viewing abortion as an amputation in terms of science. Separately both the egg and sperm contain DNA (each contain 1/2 of the human genetic blueprint) and are alive at the celullar level. Without one or the other, there would be no potential for conception thus the waste or destruction of an egg or a sperm could be technically described interfering with potential human life.

The fertilized egg contains the genetic blueprint of humans but the development of human life is only a potential. Scientists all acknowledge that a life form which can potentially develop into a human begins at conception but there is much disagreement as to when that live form becomes a human person. The abortion debate is primarily about human personhood....that is, at what level of development does a living cell which has multiplied and differentiated become a person. What are the qualities that distinguish humans from all other animals and, at what point, do these qualities develop during the pregnancy?

Ceridwen, the cold hard facts of science in this issue are still debated amongst scientists because even they recognize that it is not a black/white situation.

Being pro-choice, I obviously agree with your view that there should be exceptions to allow for abortion in some cases but for those who are anti-abortion this a gray area and slippery slope....What will be the determining factors and who will determine the appropriateness of abortion for a particular woman:
Should a woman who was raped and is now suicidal because she is pregnant with the rapists child be allowed to terminate the pregnancy or should she be forced to carry the child to term? Should she be placed in protective custody and supervised 24 hrs./day until she gives birth? If she did attempt suicide and, as a result, had a miscarriage....should she then be charged with murder?

What of a woman who is on medication. A medication which can be very harmful to a developing fetus and must be stopped in order to ensure the safety of the pregnancy. For the sake of argument, stopping this medication would not necessarily cause permanent physical harm to the mother but could seriously impact her ability to function during the course of the pregnancy like women who are on psychiatric medication. Who should make this determination? A decision that will most likely not only impact the woman and the pregnancy but also her family?

What about the use of birth control pills? Since they are abortifacients, anti-abortionists would like to make them illegal yet, often this medication is used for a variety of reasons other than birth control. Should they become illegal because they can terminate a pregnancy or will there be exceptions to this too.....and then, who will be trusted to determine these exceptions?

The right to have an abortion is not and cannot be an all-or-none proposition.
As you already noted, there are times when an abortion might be acceptible but who has the right to make this determination and how can this really be legislated? Certainly saying that the medical profession should be responsible for making this decison is unacceptible to anti-abortionists.

In re: late-term abortions which make up for less than 1% of all abortions and that is when even including spontaneous abortions.....did you know that Roe v. Wade legislates that late-term abortions should only be carried out in the case of serious health risks? It does not allow for abortions to be made because the woman just suddenly decides that she no longer wants to be pregnant....yet the opposition to these abortions maintains that the MD's performing the abortions are not following the letter of the law and are performing abortions for other reasons.......so if we can't depend on the medical profession to make the right choice who should be in charge of making this determination?

Ceridwen, I know I respond to many of your posts with questions/scenarios and I certainly do not expect you to have an answer for every specific one I pose here. My questions reflect my own thought processes on the issues and, is more to provide you some insight to why I am pro-choice.

Lastly, I would like to share an interesting website that I found that addresses the abortion debate: www.2think.org/abortion.shmtl

I would be interested with what you think.

 

[Ceridwen018]

What are the qualities that distinguish humans from all other animals and, at what point, do these qualities develop during the pregnancy?

I would agree that the main issue here is "personhood". From a scientific perspective, (and yes I realize many still disagree, but there are some fundamental facts at work here that we can all agree on), the embryo is a human life form at the moment of conception. It contains human DNA, it is certain that it will grow and be born as a human and remain human for the rest of it's life. Also, logically speaking, if it wasn't human, of what species would it be?

As far as an embryo only being potential for human life and therefore not 'living', I would say that we're entering into a battle of semantics. I say that an embryo has the potential to become a four year old, on the same premise that a four year old has the potential to become a 14 or 24 year old. This fits in with one of the four differences between an embryo and a four year old that I listed earlier: degree of development. Just because it is not fully developed does not mean that it is not human or not living. The fact of the matter is, is that it is human, and it is living. That makes me think of another question: if it's not living, what is it? It's certainly not dead....yet.

And so, on to personhood. I don't know about you, but this seems like very subjective ground to me. Personally, I don't think that something should be judged as human or not based on their personhood, and here's why: Scientific studies have shown that some animals, (apes, dolphins, etc.), display the same overall intelligence and cognitive reasoning abilities as the average 7 year old. 7 year olds are certainly considered to be human--should we consider these animals to be human as well? On the other end of the spectrum, we have people living as vegetables due to serious accidents, or perhaps they were born that way. I tell you, even an unborn fetus has more brain activity than some of these people. Should someone not be considered human anymore after they are relegated to this state? Way back in the day, when we lived in caves, fished barehanded, and wore mammoth skins, if anything at all, we were certainly equal in intelligence and sense of self to many animal species living alongside us. Were we not human then?

Should a woman who was raped and is now suicidal because she is pregnant with the rapists child be allowed to terminate the pregnancy or should she be forced to carry the child to term? Should she be placed in protective custody and supervised 24 hrs./day until she gives birth? If she did attempt suicide and, as a result, had a miscarriage....should she then be charged with murder?

I see the unborn child, no matter how underdeveloped, to be equal with the born child. If a woman, who has born children, is under a great amount of emotional stress, is she allowed to kill those children so she doesn't have to deal with them anymore? I understand that in that case, the children can be taken away from her, but that if she was pregnant there would be no way to separate her from the baby, but are we then allowing the death of a child because the situation is too inconvenient to take care of? I think that a woman should most certainly receive some kind of punishment if she kills her baby while attempting suicide. If she were to kill a born child while attempting suicide she most certainly would.

Another thought: I think it's foolish to assume that a suicidal woman won't still try to commit suicide after she's had an abortion. In those cases, the reason why she is suicidal in the first place is largely due to the actual experience she had, and only due to the actual baby on a much lesser extent. Also, we've all seen the studies showing the psychological trauma that abortion entails. Does it really seem smart to put an already unstable woman through more mentally damaging experiences?

What of a woman who is on medication. A medication which can be very harmful to a developing fetus and must be stopped in order to ensure the safety of the pregnancy. For the sake of argument, stopping this medication would not necessarily cause permanent physical harm to the mother but could seriously impact her ability to function during the course of the pregnancy like women who are on psychiatric medication. Who should make this determination? A decision that will most likely not only impact the woman and the pregnancy but also her family?

For me, this fits in with the whole "what if the mother's life is at risk" scenario. Obviously these are special circumstances, which would require special guidelines. I don't know what those guidelines would be exactly, and I don't know who should be in charge of making them, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

What about the use of birth control pills? Since they are abortifacients, anti-abortionists would like to make them illegal yet, often this medication is used for a variety of reasons other than birth control. Should they become illegal because they can terminate a pregnancy or will there be exceptions to this too.....and then, who will be trusted to determine these exceptions?

As far as birth control for medical reasons, I've already stated my position on abortion etc. for medically related scenarios. As for every day, run of the mill birth control, I would say that there are other ways. There are tons of different methods of birth control out there, including non-abortifacients. There are birth control pills which regulate a woman's menstrual cycle, to the end that she won't ovulate. Of course you know that, but what i'm sayoing is that those would certainly be preferred to something which terminates a pregnancy.

As you already noted, there are times when an abortion might be acceptible but who has the right to make this determination and how can this really be legislated? Certainly saying that the medical profession should be responsible for making this decison is unacceptible to anti-abortionists.

Well, they'd just have to deal with it then. Seriously though, I think that putting legislation in the hands of objective medicine and science is a perfectly logical thing to do.

In re: late-term abortions which make up for less than 1% of all abortions and that is when even including spontaneous abortions.....did you know that Roe v. Wade legislates that late-term abortions should only be carried out in the case of serious health risks? It does not allow for abortions to be made because the woman just suddenly decides that she no longer wants to be pregnant

late term abortion has now been outlawed. I think we're all grateful for that!

yet the opposition to these abortions maintains that the MD's performing the abortions are not following the letter of the law and are performing abortions for other reasons.......so if we can't depend on the medical profession to make the right choice who should be in charge of making this determination?

Well, if doctors are going to lie to get more money or whatever else, then obviously the decision making should be up to objective doctors employed by the government for that exact job.

Ceridwen, I know I respond to many of your posts with questions/scenarios and I certainly do not expect you to have an answer for every specific one I pose here. My questions reflect my own thought processes on the issues and, is more to provide you some insight to why I am pro-choice.

Same to you! I'm glad we can talk like this. I don't have time to check out your site right this minute, but I assure you I will!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not too long ago, there was very serious debate about whether or not black people were 'people' on the same level as white people. The best way to settle this, in my opinion, would have been to go and talk to black people--quit arguing about it, quit using logic--go and be with some black people, talk to them, get to know them, and go with your gut feeling.

Is the 'tissue' inside the womb a 'person'? Let's find out. Go here to see pictures of what a fetus looks like in the womb in the second trimester: http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal2.html

Look at the pictures. Read about fetal development. Are they 'people' or not? What does your gut tell you?

 

[Jaymes]

Look at the pictures. Read about fetal development. Are they 'people' or not? What does your gut tell you?

"No." Tiny human features and nerves reacting does not a person make.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well then our guts are in disagreement.

 

[civilcynic]

Does Planned Parenthood promote adoption as well as abortion?

I know they promote birth control and abortion but do they promote the option of adoption as equally as they do these two?

Do adoption agencies promote birth control and abortion equally as well?

 

[civilcynic]

First of all, please ignore my last post....that was an old one....don't know where my head was at

I never said that an embryo was not living.....I agree that an embryo is a life form but its potential to be a human life has not developed nor for that matter have scientists defined when human qualities (strictly human qualites) emerge. And yes, when personhood begins is subjective.....that why we have differing opinions as to whether abortion is murder. Anti-abortionists choose to believe a fertilized egg is a human being and I choose to believe that it has potetnial to be human. The difference is that pro-choice individuals are willing to allow anti-abortionists to follow their beliefs in being against abortion and not choosing to use certain types of birth control methods while anti-abortionists are unwilling to permit pro-choice individuals to follow their beliefs.

Comparing animals to humans in terms of qualities such as intelligence is anthropomorphizing..you are mixing apples and oranges...there is really no comparison that can accurately compare intelligence of 2 different species.

RE: Partial-birth abortion ban legislation....Don't celebrate yet....Several courts have thrown out this legislation because unlike Roe v Wade, the partial birth ban DID NOT make any exceptions to protect the life of the mother. Ceridwen, I thought you acknowledged that some exceptions should be allowed and yet you were pleased that there was legislation that provided no option for serious health risks?

Legislation to put the abortion issue in the hands of objective scientists and medicine???? If the scientists and medical professionals aren't trusted to make the decision along with the woman, we are going to trust a group of elected politicians ....many of which have no science and/or medical background to develop legislation to oversee the medical and scientific profession?

If I am reading your post correctly, doctors who perform abortions lie about the reasons they do so because they want to make money? Do you have any statistics to back up this statement and does that include those who prescribe abortifacients for birth control or are you speaking solely clinical abortions? In either case, you have a very poor view of doctors if you truly think that most doctors perform abortions under false pretenses and because they want to boost their income. I might also add that doctors who perform abortions are putting their life and the lives of their families at significant risk for harm and harrassment......

 

[Ceridwen018]

"No." Tiny human features and nerves reacting does not a person make.

But big human features and nerves reacting do? That is the definition of the average "human" living as a vegetable today due to an accident or otherwise.

I would say that your outlook is a bit narrow as well. Try "tiny human features, nerves reactinig, feet kicking, and heart beating" on for size. Another thing which may surprise you: did you know that babies have the sense of touch by the second trimester? Yep, that means that they feel it when you kill them.

I never said that an embryo was not living.....I agree that an embryo is a life form but its potential to be a human life has not developed nor for that matter have scientists defined when human qualities (strictly human qualites) emerge.

Maybe this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that that is a just bunch of rhetoric spread by pro-choice doctors. Human DNA is present at the moment of conception, and I don't mean DNA from the parents either. The baby's own unique DNA is present at the moment of conception, and is actively replicating at the moment of conception. I think we can all agree that (human) DNA is strictly a human quality. Another thing--what would you consider, other than DNA, to be a strict human quality? Really when you think about it, there is nothing else, at least I can't think of anything.

Another problem I have with that, is the whole potential life thing. An embryo's potential for life begins at conception. What else is an embryo other than a developing human life? It's certainly not a developing orca whale's life...or something. Seriously though, think of it this way: The moment an embryo attaches itself to the lining of the uterus, it begins to divide and grow. There is no waiting period where the embryo just sits stagnant and doesn't do anything.

And yes, when personhood begins is subjective.....that why we have differing opinions as to whether abortion is murder. Anti-abortionists choose to believe a fertilized egg is a human being and I choose to believe that it has potetnial to be human.

It doesn't have to be subjective, though. If we apply logic, we can see that the average unborn baby often has more brain activity than the average person living as a vegetable. The handicapped person is considered to be human and to contain personhood, but the baby is not and I don't understand that for a minute.

The difference is that pro-choice individuals are willing to allow anti-abortionists to follow their beliefs in being against abortion and not choosing to use certain types of birth control methods while anti-abortionists are unwilling to permit pro-choice individuals to follow their beliefs.

I see what you're saying, but we're not arguing over how to sautee tomatoes here. If some cult went around sacrificing people, would that bother you? Would you work to try and help stop the massacre? Or would you recognize that their beliefs are just different than yours, and they can carry on as long as they respect that you aren't interested in participating? The reason why anti-abortionists aren't willing to compromise is because they see abortion as murder, and we can all agree that murder is a very serious issue.

Comparing animals to humans in terms of qualities such as intelligence is anthropomorphizing..you are mixing apples and oranges...there is really no comparison that can accurately compare intelligence of 2 different species.

That's a good point.

RE: Partial-birth abortion ban legislation....Don't celebrate yet....Several courts have thrown out this legislation because unlike Roe v Wade, the partial birth ban DID NOT make any exceptions to protect the life of the mother. Ceridwen, I thought you acknowledged that some exceptions should be allowed and yet you were pleased that there was legislation that provided no option for serious health risks?

To be completely honest, I did not know that it didn't allow for exceptions for serious health risks. In fact, that isn't sitting very well with me--perhaps we are thinking of two different things. I'm going to look it up!

This raises a question in my mind: If the mother's life was at serious risk, but the baby had a high probability of being just fine, who should be given the chance to live?

Legislation to put the abortion issue in the hands of objective scientists and medicine???? If the scientists and medical professionals aren't trusted to make the decision along with the woman, we are going to trust a group of elected politicians ....many of which have no science and/or medical background to develop legislation to oversee the medical and scientific profession?

I never said politicians, I said doctors. And hey, it's just an idea

If I am reading your post correctly, doctors who perform abortions lie about the reasons they do so because they want to make money? Do you have any statistics to back up this statement and does that include those who prescribe abortifacients for birth control or are you speaking solely clinical abortions? In either case, you have a very poor view of doctors if you truly think that most doctors perform abortions under false pretenses and because they want to boost their income. I might also add that doctors who perform abortions are putting their life and the lives of their families at significant risk for harm and harrassment......

Whoa now, that was only in response to you saying that doctors were not trustworthy to decide whether or not a woman should have an abortion. I am in no way accusing doctors who perform abortions of being sneaky or underhanded, in general.

 

[linwood]

Do adoption agencies promote birth control and abortion equally as well?

I`ve already answered this.
On this page....
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2998&page=4&pp=10

No.. again because PP isn`t supposed to be an abortion agency but a family planning agency and an adoption agency is just that..it deals with adoption.
PP is supposed to give all alternatives..or so I thought.
If a woman goes directly to an abortion clinic with no contact to PP I don`t expect that abortion clinic to offer adoption options because thats not what they do.

Again I`ll say that your question makes it clear to me that PP is not actually a family planning counsel but an agent for abortion and contraception.

Their agenda does not appear to have any bias towards the baby/fetus but merely for the mother.
This would make them an abortion agent and NOT a family planning council.
Which would make their name more than misleading since they are not helping to plan For parenthood but planning how to avoid parenthood..at any cost.

At the beginning of this thread I was indeed a fence sitter in this debate.

I don`t think I am anymore.

 

[Pah]

This would make them an abortion agent and NOT a family planning council.
Which would make their name more than misleading since they are not helping to plan For parenthood but planning how to avoid parenthood..at any cost.

It's a matter of semantics.

But their statement of mission belies the interpreation you have arriived at.

All individuals worldwide have the right to nondiscriminatory, confidential access to the full range of voluntary reproductive health care services that are proven safe and effective. These services:

* should include contraception, sterilization, abortion, fertility enhancement, and prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases;
* should be offered through efficient, effective, and innovative programs that preserve individual rights and privacy; and
* should enable individuals to have children when and if they are ready—physically, emotionally, and financially.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/mission.html#01Mission


-pah-

 

[linwood]

It's a matter of semantics.

I disagree.
It seems quite pertinent to me .

But their statement of mission belies the interpreation you have arriived at.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/mission.html#01Mission

I`ve read the statement and I repeat.

If the mission of PP is as their name implies a family planning counsel they ignore at least one viable option in favor of another.

This makes me believe they have an agenda and therefore cannot be an impartial counsel.

Yes...their statement belies my interpretation of their name but I canhardly be faulted without in depth study of the organisation considering their name itself is misleading.

It`s like the Bush "Clean Air Act" which doesn`t promote clean air at all but you`d never know that unless you actually read the act and compared it`s sources to independent sources.
Like the "Healthy Forests" act and every other piece of legislation Bush has pushed through.

It`s name intentionally misleads one as to the actual contents of cause.

One can say it`s my responsibilty to determine what their cause is and that would be correct but that doesn`t change the question of why would they choose a name that is intentionally misleading unless they had a reason to mislead?

I`m not saying they do nor am I saying they don`t.
I`m just saying an action like that makes me highly suspect of them.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Anti-abortionists choose to believe a fertilized egg is a human being and I choose to believe that it has potetnial to be human.

I didn't say a fertilized egg was a human being. I said these were: http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal2.html (and this is only in the second trimester). Don't worry, these aren't pictures of dead aborted fetuses or anything, they are images of second trimester babies on the womb.

Do you think these are images of human beings or 'fertilized eggs' with the 'potential' to be human?

I'm not saying a fertilized egg is a human being, but I am saying that little five fingered, five toed babies sucking their thumbs are.

 

[civilcynic]

I have been very consistent in posts stating that the choice to have an abortion is between the woman ahd her docotr thus clearly indicating that i value and trust the docotor's opinions. Now let's examine your posts in relation to the trustworthiness of the medical profession:
"Well, if a doctors are going to lie to get more money or whatever else then obviously the decisionmaking should be left up to objective docotrs employed by the government for that exact job."
""Maybe this is just my opinion but it seems that this is just a bunch of rhetoric by pro-choice M.D.s"
****sounds to me that the only doctors you believe are trustworthy are those that support your point of view.

As for your comparison of sacrificing people vs. abortion....thidoes nothing for me as I believe there is a fundamental difference betweent a live human being outside the womb and an embryo.

As I indicated, an embryo in my view has potential to be a human being but is not a human being. I will try another analogy (I'm bad with analogies):
Consider buying a car: You receive the car in a number of boxes...all the parts are there and once assembled it would be a fully functioning car....do you think that you would consider the delivery of said parts as a car and not argue for your money back because you ordered a car and not a bunch of parts?

I gotta go to work....I'll finish my post later.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I have been very consistent in posts stating that the choice to have an abortion is between the woman ahd her docotr thus clearly indicating that i value and trust the docotor's opinions. Now let's examine your posts in relation to the trustworthiness of the medical profession:
"Well, if a doctors are going to lie to get more money or whatever else then obviously the decisionmaking should be left up to objective docotrs employed by the government for that exact job."
""Maybe this is just my opinion but it seems that this is just a bunch of rhetoric by pro-choice M.D.s"
****sounds to me that the only doctors you believe are trustworthy are those that support your point of view.

We're certainly run into a bit of a discrepency here. Allow me to clarify:

You said:

yet the opposition to these abortions maintains that the MD's performing the abortions are not following the letter of the law and are performing abortions for other reasons.......so if we can't depend on the medical profession to make the right choice who should be in charge of making this determination?

To which I replied with:

Well, if a doctors are going to lie to get more money or whatever else then obviously the decisionmaking should be left up to objective docotrs employed by the government for that exact job."

I couldn't think of any other reason why a doctor would disobey the law and perform an abortion that they knew was unecessary.

As for the second quote:

""Maybe this is just my opinion but it seems that this is just a bunch of rhetoric by pro-choice M.D.s"
****sounds to me that the only doctors you believe are trustworthy are those that support your point of view.

The abortion issue is a very political one, I think we can all agree on that. Both sides have their share of meaningless propaganda. I called that rhetoric, due to the fact that it was directly unscientific, and therefore not true. I in no way meant to imply that all pro-choice doctors are untrustworthy in their opinions.

Alright, business is over--on with the post!

As for your comparison of sacrificing people vs. abortion....thidoes nothing for me as I believe there is a fundamental difference betweent a live human being outside the womb and an embryo.

What about a live human being outside the womb, and a live human being inside the womb? How much difference do you see there? I would post some sites of pictures for you, but Spinkles has already taken care of that.

To be more specific with my question in relation to your statement, what, exactly, is the fundamental difference? As I stated before, the only differences between a developing embryo and a four/14/24 year old, are degree of development, environment, size, and level of dependency. No born person was ever killed on the charges of being a different size than everyone else, or living somewhere different, or being less developed, or being more dependent on others. Why should unborn babies be treated any differently?

Consider buying a car: You receive the car in a number of boxes...all the parts are there and once assembled it would be a fully functioning car....do you think that you would consider the delivery of said parts as a car and not argue for your money back because you ordered a car and not a bunch of parts?

For this analogy to fit, you would have to take into consideration that the parts of the car would be actively putting themselves together. An embryo does not go through a period of time where it's just sitting there "unassembled". It is actively growing and developing from the very moment of conception.

Also, would you take all of those developing car parts and destroy them? Of course not--they are still valuable and soon enough you will have a fully developed car.